TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007) 181-199

THE NEW COVENANT AND

NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY
Larry D. Pettegrew*
Former Pro fessor of Theology

On a spectrum of continuity and discontinuity, New Covenant Theology lies

between Covenant Theology and Progressive Dispensationalism and shows a numb er
of improvements over Covenant Theology in such matters as emphasizing exegetical
and biblical theolo gy as a basis for systematic theology. Jeremiah 31:31-34 and
several other passages state provisions of the New Covenant in the OT. The NT
mentions the New Covenant in Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, and 2 Cor 3:6, among other
places, indicating that the dea th of Christ marked the inauguration of the New
Covenant. Traditional Covenant Theology sees the New Covenant as merely an
upd ating of the O ld Co venant a nd se es it as fulfilled in the church. New Covenant
Theology sees the New Covenant as something new and not just a redoing of the
Mo saic Covenant, b ut still thinks the N ew C ovenan t is being fulfilled in the church.
Though som e Dispen sation alists disa gree, most Disp ensa tiona lists understand that
the New Covenant was inaugurated with the death , burial, resurrection, and
ascension of Ch rist and the co min g of the Spirit at Pentecost. Dispensationalism sees
the New Covenant a s som ething new, bu t in agreement with early Christian tradition,
furnishes a fuller expla nation of the New Cove nant in regard to Israel’s future
regathering and restoration. Covenant Theology and New Covenan t Theology agree
that the OT is to be read through the lens of the NT, but Dispensationalism is alone
in insisting that th e OT sho uld b e give n its full weight in light o f historical-
gram matical principles of he rmen eutics.

*****

New Covenant Theo logy (NCT ) is a branch of Reformed theology that

*
After delivering his Faculty Lecture at The Master’s Seminary early in 2007, Professor Pettegrew
accepted the position of E xec utive V ice-P resid ent of Sh eph erds Th eologic al Sem inary, Ca ry, N orth
Carolina. He is no w s ervin g as a leade r at S hep herd s, bu t gracio usly co nse nted to con tribute this essay
to The Master’s Seminary Journal before he assumed his new position.

181
 182 The Master’s Seminary Journal

proclaims that the entire Mosaic Covenant has passed away as a law code, and that
Christians are supposed to live under the New Covenant. T his is in con trast to many
Covenant theologians who assert that the New Co venant is only an updated O ld
Covenant and that parts of the M osaic Covenant continue on into the New Covenant
era and serve as a standard of ethics for New Testament Christians. In the spectrum
of continuity and discon tinuity, New Covenant Theology seems to fit in between
Covenant Theology and Progressive Dispensationalism.

Continuity Discontinuity
7 th Day Adventism—Theonomy— Cove nant Theology— N C T — P r og re ss iv e D is pe n. — T ra dit io na l D is pe n. — U lt ra D ispen.

THINGS TO LIKE ABOUT NCT

There are several things to like about NCT. Without going into detail or
referencing Covenant theologians from whom N CT is contrasted, the following
twelve p oints are definite im provements over Co venant Th eology.
1. NCT tries to emphasize “exegetical and biblical theology as the source
of systematics.” 1 New Covenant theologians, Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel write,

Those of us who are of the Calvinistic theological tradition should be diligently seeking
to sort out biblical fact from system or tradition driven conclusions. That is, if there is
some belief that we hold to be biblically true and its truth is an essential part of our
theological system or heritage, yet we cannot establish its validity on any text of scripture,
then we must throw that belief out; perhaps even throw out our theological system; or
ignore certain parts of our heritage.2

2. NCT rejects the Covenant of Redem ption as a theo logical covenant.

Steve Lehrer explains,

We do not believe that it is wise to refer to God’s plan to save a people in eternity past as
a “covenant.” But we do believe that our one God who is three co-equal and co-eternal
persons did make a perfect plan that He would save a people from their sins. But if this
plan is not called a covenant by the authors of Scripture, we must think twice about
describing it by that name ourselves. . . . The danger of calling something a covenant that
Scripture does not refer to as a covenant increases the likelihood of making something a
cornerstone of our theology that in fact is not an emphasis in Scripture. This of course
would lead to an unbalanced and unbiblical theological system.3

1
Tom W ells and Fre d Zas pel, New Covenant Theology (Frederick, Md.: New Covenant Media,
2002) 2.
2
Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker, “Examining the Imputation of the Ac tive O bed ienc e of C hrist: A
Study in Calvinistic Sacred Cowism ,” The Journal of New Covenant Theology II:2 (2004):79.
3
Steve Le hrer, New C ovenant Theology: Questions Answered (Self-Published, 2006 ).
 The New Covenant and Covenant Theology 183

3. NCT re jects the Covenant of Works as a foundational theological

covenant. Acco rding to Lehrer, “NCT, however, disagrees with those who hold to
a Co venant of W orks with Adam.” 4

4. NCT rejects the Co venant of G race a s a theological covenant. 5

5. NCT “views the Ten Comm andments as the essence of the Old Co venant
and not the essence of all of G od’s law.” 6

6. NCT believes that “the O ld Co venant is obsolete and will disappear. . .

. Heb rews 8 :13.” 7

7. NCT recognizes the relative newness of Covenant Theology. “Covenant

Theology was unknown until Ulrich Zwingli called it into service against the
Anabap tists.” 8

8. NCT appreciates the contributions of the Anabaptists. “Whether anyone

noticed or not, they [the Anabaptists] adopted the Reformation slogan sola scriptura
and took it more seriously than their opponents, but traditional ways of doing
theolo gy won the day.” 9

9. NCT rejects the typical Covenant Theologica l (and others) view that
divides the Mosaic Law into three distinct parts, some of which have been abrogated,
and some of which the New Covenant Christian is obligated to obey. Wells and
Zaspel write, “The popular hermeneutical attempt to divide M oses’ law into so many
parts and then interpret NT statements of the passing of law accordingly is simplistic,
and it cannot be maintained exege tically.” 1 0 “It is the Mosaic code as a whole and
in all its parts that has passed away, and the apostolic declarations to that end must
therefo re be seen to emb race e ven the Decalog ue.” 1 1

10. NCT recognizes the difficulty for Covenant Theologians to differ from

4
Ibid., 37.
5
W ells and Zas pel, New Covenant Theology 45.
6
Geoff Volker and Mike Adam s, “Defining New Co ven ant T heo logy. O nline a t:
http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/New_Covenant_Theology_Defined.html, accessed 7/2/07.
7
Ibid. See also Lehrer, New Covenant Theology 181ff. and 186.
8
W ells and Zas pel, New Covenant Theology 2.
9
Ibid., 30.
10
Ibid., 150.
11
Ibid., 152. See also ibid., 185.
184 The Master’s Seminary Journal

the Reformation creeds. “What I want to say [in this chapter] may be summarized
in two short sentences:

1. Our creeds and co nfession s are one imm ense b arrier to unity.

2. T here is no easy or ob vious w ay to cro ss this divid e.” 1 2

11. NCT elevates the person and law of Christ, that is, the N ew Covenant,
over the Mosaic Law. “W hich is the higher revelation of the character of God, the
Ten commandments or the perso n, work and teaching of Jesus C hrist? Most
Christians, we think, will agree on the answer. We’ve tried to go a step further and
work out its imp lications acco rding to the N T S criptures.” 1 3

12. NCT rejects the typical covenant theological view that the New
Covenant is simply a renewed Old Covenant. 1 4

It would seem, therefore, that NCT has exposed and co rrected some of the
major errors of Covenant Theology, and for that one can be thankful to N CT . In fact,
one might think that NCT has cut out the heart of Covenant Theo logy by rejecting the
three basic theological covenants of Covenant Theology. But this would be
somewhat of an exaggeration in that other essential Covenant Theological matters are
embraced by NCT.
T his article will focus on the role of the New Covenant in New Covenant
Theology. Specifically, the goal of this essay is threefold: (1) To identify the
differences between NCT , Covenant Theology, and Dispensationalism in the
interpretation of the New Covenant as it is found in Scripture. These difference s will
be found in two key questions: Is the N ew Covenant a re newed O ld Covenant or the
New Covenant? And is Israel really Israel, o r is Israel the church? (2) W hat are the
key differences in these three systems in doing theology, especially in the relation of
the Old Testament to the New Testament? (3) In regard to understanding the New
Covenant, what are the differences in the hermeneutical systems in these three
systems?

THE NEW COVENANT

Before considering the differences between NCT , Covenant Theology, and

Dispen sationalism in the interp retation of the N ew Covenant, the main features of the

12
Ibid., 259.
13
Ibid., 2.
14
Ibid., 46ff.
 The New Covenant and Covenant Theology 185

New Covenant as stated in Scripture need to be summarized.

The New Covenant in the Old Testament

The phrase, “New Covenant,” is o nly found in one passage in the OT,
Jeremiah 31:31-34:

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with
their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My
covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. But this
is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the
LORD, “I will put My law with in them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their
God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again each man his neighbor and
each man his brother, saying, ’Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least
of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and
their sin I will remember no more.”15

However, the New Covenant is revealed under other names and descriptions
throughout the OT prophets. The New Covenant is described as the “everlasting
covenant” (Jer 32:40); “new heart” and “new spirit” (Ezek 11:19-20); “covenant of
peace” (Ezek 37 :26); “a covenant” or “my covenant” (Isa 49:8).
The parties of the C ovenant are always God with Israel/Judah, as illustrated
in Jer 31:31-40 quoted above. Som etimes the prophets even mention the geography
of Israel, or the city of Jerusalem in their descriptions of the recipients of the New
Covenant. On the other hand, other nations are not excluded from the NC, and in fact
there seems to be some spill over or trickle down benefits of the New Covenant to the
Gentiles (Isa 5 6:7-8 ). But the Co venant is mad e with Israel.
The provisions of the New Covenant include a new heart (Ezek 11:19-20);
permanent forgiveness of sins (Je r 33:8); the p erma nent ind welling o f the Holy Sp irit
in all believers (Ezek 36:27); the law inside of a believer (Jer 31:33); a consummation
of Israel’s relationship with God (Jer 31:33); physical blessings on Israel consisting
of gathering of the scattered Israelites to the land, rebuilding o f the cities, productiv-
ity of the land , increase in herds and flock s, rest, peace, and expressions of joy.
The fulfillment of the New Covenant, from an OT perspective, therefore,
involves two parties—God, on the one hand, and Israel/Judah, on the other (Ezek
37:15-28) According to the OT, the fulfillment of the New Covenant will take place
when Israel is spiritually alive (Ezek 37:1-14); in relationship to the coming of the
Messiah when Israel is regathered to the land (Ezek 3 7:24 -28; Jer 3:1 4-16 ); and in
the Messianic Kingdom (Isa 11:6-10; Jer 32:37-41). Other nations will also receive
the trickle down blessings (Isa 19:22-25) as an elaboration of the feature of the
Abraham ic Covenant, “in you all the nations of the earth will be blessed” (Gen 12:3).

15
All biblical quotations are from the NASB Update unless otherwise noted.
186 The Master’s Seminary Journal

Of course, there is nothing in the New Covenant passages about the church—Jew and
Gentile together in one body on equal footing because the New T estament explains
that the church was a mystery in the OT (E ph 3:1-12).

The New Covenant in the New Testament

Some Disp ensatio nalists would arg ue that the New Covenant is not
inaugurated until the be ginning of the millennial kingdom. It seems much more
likely, however, that the New Covenant was inaugurated with the death of Christ for
forgiveness of sins, and the outpo uring of the Ho ly Spirit on the Day o f Pentecost.
Jesus says that the shedding of His blood is the basis of the New Covenant: “And in
the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured
out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). Moreover, the Holy
Spirit, a main feature of the New Covenant, comes to begin to fulfill the promise of
the New Covenant at P entecost. In his P entecost serm on, P eter explains,

“This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been
exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the
Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. . . .” Peter said to
them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness
of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you
and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to
Himself” (Acts 2:32-33; 38-39).

In the epistles, Paul restates the Lord’s teaching about the blood of the New
Covenant to the church at Corinth: “In the same way He took the cup also after
supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My b lood; do this, as often as you
drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor 11:25 ). Paul also ide ntifies himse lf and his
fellow ministers as “servants of a new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6).
The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews also tries to convince the Christian
Jews that through the New Covenant, they had a better mediator than Moses in Jesus
Christ (Heb 8:6 ; cf. Exo d 20 :18-2 1). H e also p lainly explains that the New Covenant
has replaced the Old Co venant (Heb 8:7-13 ). In fact, we know exactly when the Old
Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, came to an end. God clearly indicated that it was
no longer in existence at the crucifixion when the grea t veil in the Je rusalem temple
was torn in two from top to bo ttom (M att 27:51). Really, the NT is a manual on how
to live as a Christian und er the N ew Covenant.

TH E N EW CO VEN AN T A ND TH E TH EO LO GIC AL SY STEM S

The discussion about the New Covenant among the systems focuses on two
key questions: (1) Is the new covenant a renewed Old Covenant or a New Covenant
distinct from the old Mosaic Covenant? (2) Is the “Israel” that is to fulfill the New
Covenant really Israel, or is Israel somehow replaced by the church?
 The New Covenant and Covenant Theology 187

Traditional Covenant Theology

An Updated Old Covenant

To answer the first question, many traditional Covenant theologians argue
that the New Covenant is really the Old Covenant updated. Without a doubt, the
main sponsor of the renewed Old Cove nant viewpoint was John Calvin. In his
com mentary on J erem iah, Ca lvin states,

Now, as to the new covenant, it is not so called, because it is contrary to the first covenant;
for God is never inconsistent with himself, nor is he unlike himself. . . . It then follows,
that the first covenant was inviolable; besides, he had already made his covenant with
Abraham, and the Law was a confirmation of that covenant. And then the Law depended
on that covenant which God made with his servant Abraham, it follows that God could
never have made a new, that is, a contrary or a different covenant. . . .

It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form. . . . But the substance remains the
same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward
nothing but what the Law contains. We hence see that God has so spoken from the
beginning, that he has not changed, no not a syllable, with regard to the substance of the
doctrine.16

Also in the Institutes, in a section entitled, “The Similarity of the Old and
New Testaments,” Ca lvin argues that the New Co venant is really a renewed O ld
Covenant. He writes, “Now we can clearly see from what has already been said that
all men adopted b y God into the company of his people since the beginning of the
world were covenanted to him by the same law and by the bond of the same doctrine
as obtains amo ng us.” 1 7 Moreo ver, “T he co venant mad e with all the patriarchs is so
much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same.
Yet they differ in the mo de of dispensation.” 1 8
For Calvin and his Covenant followers, the M osaic law, though renew ed in
the New Covenant, serves as the norm for the Christian’s life today. More
specifically, the mo ral law, given for the New T estament Ch ristian, is given in the
Ten Comm andments. Question 41 of The W estminster Sh orter Catechism, 1647,
reads: “Wherein is the law summarily comprehended ? An s. The mo ral law is

16
John Calvin, Comm entaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations, translated
from the La tin an d ed ited by John O wen (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852; reprint, Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1979) 126-27.
17
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1,The Library of Christian Classics, Volume
XX, ed. J ohn T. M cN eill, trans . Ford Lew is B attles, 3 vols. (P hilade lphia: W estm inster, 1960) 2:10:1,
428.
18
Ibid., 2:10:2. 429.
188 The Master’s Seminary Journal

summ arily com prehended in the ten commandments.” 1 9 And the Westminster
Confession, perhaps the first major confession of faith to promote systematized
Covenant Theology, reads, “The moral law [i.e., the ten commandments] doth forever
bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereo f; and that not only
in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the
Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much
strengthen, this ob ligation.”
Traditional Covenant Theologians, such as the nineteenth-century Princeton
professors, followed Calvin’s interpretation. 2 0 And so have contempo rary Covenant
Theologians. William Van Gemeren states, The New Covenant “is the sam e in
substance as the old covenant (the Mosaic administration), but different in form” 2 1 ,
and “The law is not replaced by the Spirit in the eschatological age. The Spirit opens
peo ple up to the law and transforms them to live by a higher e thics.” 2 2 Robert
Reymond adds, “Revelation defines that likeness to God according to which
Christians’ lives are to be patterned concretely in terms of conformity to his
perceptive will for them—the moral law or Ten com mandments (Exod 20:1-17; Deut
5:6-21). That is to say, it is the Decalogue which is the ethical norm for the
Christian’s cove nant wa y of life.” 2 3 Interestingly enough, some New Perspective
theologians have also stressed this rather extreme contin uity between the Old
Covenant and the New Covenant. 2 4

Fulfilled with the Church

To the second question as to who fulfills the New Covenant, traditional
Covenant Theology answers that though the New Covenant was made with Israel, it
is ultimately fulfilled with the church. William E. Cox writes, “The contention of

19
“The Westm inster Shorter Confession,” 1647, in Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1877; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977) 684.
20
E.g., A . A. H odge, Outlines of Theology (Carlisle, Pa.: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983; reprint
of 1879 edition), 368-71.
21
W illiam Van Gemeren, in Th e La w, th e G osp el, and the Modern Christians, Five Views, ed.Wayne
G. Strickland, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) 36.
22
Ibid., 45.
23
Robert Reym ond, A N ew Sys tem atic T heo logy of the Ch ristia n F aith (N ash ville: Thom as Nelson,
1998), 770.
24
James D. G. Dunn w rites, “For it is important to recall that the hope which Paul saw as thus
fulfilled in the Spirit was not hope for another law or a different Torah. . . . . Contrary to popular opinion,
the promise of a new covenant in Jeremiah is not of a new or dif feren t law. T he p rom ise is p lain: “I w ill
put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). Likewise the new heart and spirit
promised in Ezekiel has in view a m ore effective keeping of t he la w . . .” (The Theology of Paul the
Ap ostle [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998] 645). See also the very helpful book , Fem i Ad eyem i, The New
Covenant To rah in Je rem iah a nd th e La w o f Ch rist, Studies in Biblical Literature, ed. H em cha nd G ossa i,
vol. 94 (New York: Peter Lang, 2006) 7-10.
 The New Covenant and Covenant Theology 189

this writer is that the new covenant was established at the first coming of Christ, and
that it was established with the church— which is the fullness of which Israel was
only a type (c omp are E ph. 1:23).” 2 5 David W ilkerson pro claims, “Ho wever, this
New Covenant was m eant not for natural Israel, not then, not now, nor in some
millennial period. It is meant for spiritual Israel. . . .”2 6 Samuel Waldron adds, “You
may be asking: Does not Jeremiah 31 say that the New Covenant was to be made
with the house of Israel and the house of Jud ah? How can it be, then, that the New
Covenant is fulfilled in the mainly Gentile Church? The simple answer to that
question is that the Church is Israel.” 2 7
In fact, the way the New Covenant relates to the church is one of Covenant
Theology’s arguments for the church being new Israel. O. P almer Ro bertson writes:

When Jeremiah specifically indicates that the new covenant will be made “with the house
of Judah and with the house of Israel,” this perspective must be kept in mind. If the new
covenant people of God are the actualized realization of a typological form, and the new
covenant now is in effect, those constituting the people of God in the present circum-
stances must be recognized as the ‘Israel of God.’ As a unified people, the participants
of the new covenant today are Israel.”28

W hat Rob ertson seems to be saying is, (1) The Old Testament said that the New
Covenant would be fulfilled with Israel. (2) Tod ay, the New Covenant is being
fulfilled with the church. (3) T herefo re, the ch urch m ust be a renew ed Israel.
One would think that the more biblical and logical conclusion in point three
above would be that this proves that the ultimate fulfillment of the promises of the
New Covenant has not yet occurred, and there will be a future fulfillment of this
Covenant with Israel. So to summarize: Mo st Covenant Theologians believe that the
New Covenant is really the Old Co venant updated; and all Covenant Theologians
believe that the church replaces Isra el in fulfillment o f the New Covenant.

New Covenant Theology

NCT places a great stress on the New Covenant, as one would expect, given
the name o f the system. Lehrer explains,

25
W illiam E. C ox, The New Covenant Israel (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963)
35.
26
Da vid W ilkerson, Israel and the New Covenant (Lindale, Tex.: Wilkerson Trust Publication,
2000) 13.
27
Sam uel E. W aldron, w ith Rich ard C . Barc ellos , A R efor me d B aptis t M anife sto: The New
Covenant Con stitution of the Church (Palmdale, Calif.: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2004) 21.
28
O . Palm er Ro bertson , Th e C hris t of the Co ven ants (Phillipsbu rg, N .J.: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1980) 289.
190 The Master’s Seminary Journal

We are often asked why, as a ministry, we have chosen to highlight NCT. . . . We believe
that our emphasis on the New Covenant is a reflection of God’s Word. The reason why
we highlight the New Covenant is because the Scriptures highlight it. . . . The centrality
of the New Covenant cannot be overemphasized. It is a way of speaking about all that the
Lord accomplished. We believe that the way in which you understand the New Covenant
affects both how you understand a myriad of important doctrines in Scripture and how
you live as a Christian in a fallen world.29

A New C ovenant
Mo reover, for NCT, the New Covenant really is a New Cove nant, not the
old Mosaic Covenant redone. 3 0 Still, there is a fine line here. For NCT, this does not
mean that the Old Covenant is abolished. Rather the Old Co venant transm utes into
the New. David W ells writes, “Does that mean that the Decalogue is abolished? Not
at all. It just means that the fulfillment o f Jerem iah 31 :33 is a fulfillment that
involves a transformation from the Ten Comm andments as written in the OT to the
teaching of Jesus and his writing disciples. The caterpillar has been transformed. He
now loo ks very different.” 3 1
At any rate, as a result of this transformation, the Ten Com mandments are
no longer a rule of life for a child of God in NCT . In Zaspel’s words,

[T]he church is not at all obliged to follow the old law in its older form. We are required
to follow the law only as it comes to us through the grid of Jesus Christ, the law’s Lord
and fulfiller. It does not belong to any hermeneutical system to dictate beforehand what
part of Moses remains and what does not—which parts are ‘moral’ and which are not.
Neither must we displace the law altogether because of another hermeneutic.32

Even the idea of dividing the M osaic Covenant into three parts and claiming that one
part still remains is rejected. “To argue that not the moral (i.e., Decalogue) but only
the civil and/or ceremo nial aspects of M oses are passed, when P aul says tha t it is in
fact the Old C ovenant itself, ‘written and engraved in stones’ that has pa ssed away,
misses Paul’s point. It is Moses en toto that he says has gone (2 Cor. 3). 3 3
Thus, instead of the Mosaic law, the rule of life under the N ew Covenant is
the “law of Christ.” “NCT em braces the law of C hrist,” writes Lehrer, “which is the
law that is applicable to b elievers today. T he law of Christ includes the commands

29
Steve Lehrer, “Editor’s Introduction,” The Journal of New Covenant Theology I:1 (2003):3.
30
See, fo r exam ple, Lehrer, New Covenant Theology 170.
31
W ells and Zas pel, New Covenant Theology 184.
32
Ibid., 130.
33
Ibid., 151.
 The New Covenant and Covenant Theology 191

given by Christ and H is Apostles. There are many, many laws in the New Co venant
Scrip tures. . .” 3 4

Fulfilled with the Church

Though making some significant steps forward, NCT takes a step back
toward Covenant Theology and teaches that the New Covenant is ultimately fulfilled
with the church rather than with the nation of Israel. New Co venant Theologians
adm it that Jer 31:31 teaches that the New Covenant was originally made with Israel.
According to Lehrer, “If you read the verses that surround this text. . . , it is crystal
clear that this New Covenant, in its O ld Testament context, is promised to the geo-
political nation of Israel at so me p oint in the future.” 3 5 Nonetheless, “Israel in the
Old Covenant era was a temporary, unbelieving picture of the true people of God, the
church. There always existed a small remnant of believers within unbelieving
Israel.” 3 6 Thus, in both Covenant Theology and N CT, the church replaces Israel, and
God has no special future for the nation other than as individual Jews become a part
of the church.
NCT does have a somewhat different view of OT Israel from standard
Covenant Th eolo gy. NCT , much more than Covenant Theo logy, minimizes the
significance of OT Israel. T he natio n of Israel, at best, was only “an unbelieving type
or picture of the true people of God, the church. . . . Israel was not the church in the
Old Testament. . . .” 3 7 Many Covenant Theologians would insist that Israel in the OT
was the church. But for NC T, exce pt for “a tiny remnant,” O T Israelites “are in hell
because o f unbelief.” 3 8

Dispen sationa lism

Dispen sationalism is not a monolithic theology. There are differences of

opinions within Dispensationalism on many items, and some Dispensationalists have
taught not only that the New Covenant of Jer 31:31 has not yet been inaugurated, but
also that the New Covenant really is the Old Covenant redone.3 9 But this w ould

34
Lehrer, New Covenant Theology 112.
35
Ibid., 170.
36
Ibid., 20.
37
Ibid., 66.
38
Ibid., 34.
39
John R. M aster, “T he N ew C ovenan t,” in Issues in Dispensationalism , eds. Wesley R. Willis and
John R. Master (Chicago: Moody, 1994) 97. M aster writes, “In Jeremiah’s prop hecy, wh at ‘ law ’ w ou ld
be in the ir m inds and on th eir he arts? Co ntex tually wo uld n ot Jer em iah’s read ers h ave th ough t of the
comm ands of God given through M oses? Is there any indication that new com man ds are demanded or
even im p lie d. T he te rm my law is the Hebrew word tora ti, which to Jeremiah’s audience, would have
signaled the instruction God had given to His people through Moses and the prophets. The difference
192 The Master’s Seminary Journal

probab ly be a minority view. M ost Dispensationalists teach that the New Covenant
was indeed inaugurated in connection with the death, burial, resurrection, and
ascension of Christ and w ith the coming o f the Spirit in His New Covenant ministries
on the day of Pentecost. Moreover, the New Covenant really is new.4 0

A New C ovenant
One might think, therefo re, that D ispensationa lists are in agreem ent with
New Covenant Th eologians who also teach that the N ew Covenant really is new.
Though this is true to so me extent, some d isagree ment with NC T also exists as to
how the New Covenant should be defined and explained.

A Correct Definition

New Covenant Theologians regularly limit their definition of the New

Covenant to “the work of Jesus Christ on the cross (He brew s 8:6-1 3; 10 :11-1 8.” 4 1
W ells defines, “The New Cove nan t, then, is the bond between God and man,
established by the blood (i.e. the sacrificial death) of Christ, under which the church
of Jesus Christ has come into being.” 4 2

Such explanations are good as far as the y go, and one cou ld not argue with
the essence of these explanations. But they leave out many other features of the New
Covenant, not the least that the New Co venant was made with Israel, not the church.
From the Dispensational perspective, a fuller explanation of the New Covenant as
taught in Scripture might ad d something like this: “This Covenant, then, has to do
with the regeneration, forgiveness, and justification of Israel, the outp ouring of the
Ho ly Spirit with His subsequent ministries, Israel’s regathering and restoration to the
place of blessing, all founded on the blood o f Christ.” 4 3

An Historical Tradition

Though Calvin’s view that the New Covenant is basically the Old Covenant
redone has many followers, the view that the New Covenant is really a new and

betw een the M osaic cove nan t and the n ew cove nan t did n ot lie sp ecific ally in a dif feren ce in commands
but rather in the people’s response, which would, under the new covenant, be the work of God in the
individual’s life so th at each would obe y (tora ti). . . . Inte restin gly, ther e is n o m ention of a c han ge in
the laws of God , only in their actu al obedien ce to them .”
40
See Larry D. Pettegrew, Th e N ew Co ven ant M inistr y of th e H oly S pirit (Gran d R apids: K regel,,
201) 85-107.
41
Lehrer, “Editor’s Introduction” 3.
42
W ells and Zas pel, New Covenant Theology 57 (em phasis in the original).
43
J. D wight P entecos t, T hin gs to C om e (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1958) 118.
 The New Covenant and Covenant Theology 193

different covenant also has a strong tradition in the history of Christian doctrine. The
church father, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, argues that
Christians “do not trust through Moses or through the law. . . . Now, law placed
against law has abro gated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after
in like manner has put an end to the previous one, and an eternal and final
law— namely, Christ— has been given to us, and the co venant is trustworthy, after
which there shall be no law, no commandment, nor ordinance.” 4 4 Femi Adeyemi
comm ents,

From the above one could say that Justin Martyr understood that the Old Covenant was
a covenant for national Israel only, not for the current church. It could be assumed also
that he recognized that the Old Covenant had its own law, both of which have already
ended with the Christ event. However, in Justin, with the cessation of the Old Covenant
and its Law came the New Covenant and its law through Christ.45

Other fathers who also proclaim the newness of the New Co venant include
Irenaeus, 4 6 Tertullian,4 7 and Augustine.4 8 In the Reformation, Martin Luther insisted
that the New Covenant was not the Old Covenant redo ne and that the entire M osaic
Covenant had passed away, not just the ceremonial law.4 9 So D ispensationa lists and
New Covenant Th eologians would fall in line with this historical tradition that the
New Co venant is really new, not an upd ated O ld Co venant.

44
Jus tin M artyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew , 11:10-13, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander
Ro berts and James Donaldson; reprint editor A. Cleveland Coxe; vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973)
199-200.
45
Fem i Ade yem i, The New Covenant Torah 23.
46
See Irenaeus, Five Books Against Heresies, book 4, chapters 9-15 especially, in The Ante-Nicene
Fathers , eds. R oberts an d D onaldson , 472 -80. S ee also A deyem i, New Covenant Torah 23.
47
See Tertullian, Against Marcion, book 5, chapter 11, in The Ante-N icen e Fa thers , eds . Ro berts
and Donaldson, 452-53.
48
See Aug ustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, especially chapters 31-39, in Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, ed. P hilip S cha ff, tran s. P eter H olm es an d R obe rt Ernest Wallis, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1971) 96-99.
49
M artin Luther, “On the Bondage of the Will,” Luther’s Works, vol. 33, C areer of the Reform er,
III, eds. Philip S. Wateson and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) 258-59.
194 The Master’s Seminary Journal

A Better Exposition

Mo reover, the best exposition of the key OT passage where the covenant is
called “new” teaches that the New Covenant is indeed new.5 0 The H ebrew word for
“new” means “new,” “fresh,” something “not yet existing.” It is used in the OT for
a new garment, a new house, a new wife, a new song, a new king, and a new moon.
Other Hebrew wo rds speak of repair, but not the word used here. Neither the
Hebrew adjective no r the G reek adjec tive means “renewed.” 5 1
Furthermore, the Lord through Jeremiah, adds that the N ew Covenant wo uld
not be like the Old Covenant that He had mad e with the fathers at the time of the
Exodus, the Covenant “which they broke” (Jer 31:32). The adverb, “not,” placed
with the comparative phrase, “like the covenant,” “emphatically negates the
correspondence or identity of the coming New Co venant with the Sinaitic Covenant
that had existed b efore.” 5 2 Besides, Israel’s ongo ing diso bed ience of the O ld
Covenant brought curses to them instead of blessings (cf. Deut 29) and eventually led
to the abrogation of the Old Covenant with Israe l (cf. M att 27:51; H eb 8:13). It is
highly unlikely, therefore, that the New Covenant is a renewed Old Covenant, or that
the Mosaic law, which is at the heart of the Mosaic Covenant, is at the heart of New
Covenant Christian ethics. Of course, the New Covenant as taught by Christ and H is
apostles, is often similar to the Mosaic law.

Fulfilled with Israel

Dispensationa lists are agreed that the N ew Covenant will be ultimately
fulfilled with Israel in the millennial kingdom.5 3 Jeremiah states that the New
Covenant will be made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah (Jer 31 :31).
“Hou se of Israel” occurs 147 times in the OT and “House of Judah ” occurs 3 5 times.
The two terms are found together nine times, eight of the se in Jeremiah. All of these
texts speak specifically of national Israel. Since it is plainly stated that the New
Covenant is made with Israel, one might expect that its ultimate fulfillment would be
mad e with Israel.
Many other texts throughout the OT point toward the fulfillment of the New
Covenant with a future Israel. The prop het Hosea, for example, writes, “For the sons
of Israel will remain for many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred

50
For a helpful exegesis of Jer 31:31 -34, see Ade yem i, New Covenant Torah 43-7 6. H is entire work
is enlightening.
51
Ibid., 47-49.
52
Ibid., 49.
53
Dis pen sation alists have often struggled to explain how the church gets into the New Covenant
made with Israel. For a discu ssion of th is theological issue see Larry P ettegrew , “Th e N ew C ovenan t,”
The M aster’s Seminary Journal 10/2 (F all 1999):2 51-70 . Also see Larry D . Pettegrew , The New
Co ven ant M inistr y of th e H oly S pirit 28-38.
 The New Covenant and Covenant Theology 195

pillar and w ithout ep hod or ho useho ld ido ls. Afterward the sons of Israel will return
and seek the L ORD their God and D avid their king; and they will com e trembling to
the LORD and to His goodness in the last days” (Hos 3:3-4).
In addition, the N T teaches that God has not perm anently cast off
disob edien t Israel. Paul says it clearly:

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not
be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the
fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS
FROM JACOB. THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY
THEIR SINS.” From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but
from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the
gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Rom 11:25-29).

THE NEW COVENA NT AND TH EOLOGICAL ISSUES

In the ongoing discussions among the systems, the debate has often come
down to two basic matters. First, different views have been taken about how
theology should be done in determining the order of the Old and N ew Testaments.
The second matter deals with herm eneutics, specifically how does one interpret the
OT. The two matters are closely related.

How to Do T heology: Th e Orde r of the Testaments

NCT follows the erro r of classic Covenant Th eolo gy of subordinating the
Old Covenant to the new. Historically, the Reformers brought the Protestant church
out of the long night of Medieval exegetical disaster and reawakened the church to
the value of the history and ethics of the OT. T hey took the OT mo re seriously and
developed their idea of the theolo gical co venant out of OT theolo gy. There was also
a renewal of the commitment to literal interpretation and an awareness of the dangers
of allegorical interp retation. However, one hermeneutical principle from medieval
attitudes toward the clarity of Scripture remained: the subordination of the OT to the
NT .
This procedure in doing theology continues to this day to be the method of
doing theology in Covenant Theology. Covenant Theologian, Hans K. LaRondelle,
for example, argues that the OT Scriptures can be interpreted accurately o nly by
studying the NT. H istoric C hristianity, he says, has always tried to understand the
Old by the N ew. T he Christian interpreter of the O T is once and fo r all obliged to
read the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of the NT as a whole, because the Old is
interpreted authoritatively, und er divine inspira tion, in the NT as God’s continuous
196 The Master’s Seminary Journal

history of salvation. Ac cord ing to LaRo ndelle, historic C hristianity has always
confessed that the New Testament is the goal and fulfillment of the Old.5 4
New Covenant theologians agree. Lehrer insists, “Hermeneutical princip le
#2 is, always read the Old Covenant Scriptures through the lens of the New Covenant
Scrip tures.” 5 5 To m W ells concurs, “T he critica l point here is this: NT revelation, due
to its finality, must b e allowed to speak first on ev ery issue that it addresses.” 5 6
For Covenant and N ew Covenant T heologians, therefore, doing theology
proceeds as follows: 5 7

(1) The formulation of a biblical theology from the NT;

(2) The formulation of a biblical theology from the OT;
(3) T he production o f a systema tic theolo gy by harmonizing p oints 1 and 2 .

But there are serious weaknesses in using the NT as a pair of glasses through
which to read the OT, as nice as it may sound. By reading the NT back into the OT,
Covenant Theologians may in effect minimize the historical-grammatical interpreta-
tion of great sections of the OT and p roduce allegorizations of the OT . New Covenant
Theologians admit that the OT says one thing (i.e., “Israel”), but it must mean
something else (i.e., “churc h”), because they ha ve restricted its meaning only to what
they think the NT d irects the O T to say.
New Covenant Theo logians in effect “undo, or replace the results that would
have been obtained in perfo rming a true biblical theology of the O T.” 5 8 In doing
theolo gy, the OT is almost an afterthought in this procedure. In actua lity, the NT is
used like the “presidential power of veto” 5 9 over legitimate exegetical results in OT
passages. Consequently, a true OT biblical theology that serves to form the
production of systematic theolo gy is nonexistent. The systematic theology is “one-
legged .” 6 0
The proper approach for d oing theology is as follows:

54
Hans K. LaR onde lle, The Israel of God in Prophecy (Berrie n Sp rings, M ich.: An drew s U niver sity,
1983) 19. U nfortunately, the “historic Christianity” that he is referring to in this case is the medieval
method of interpretation. See further, Larry D. Pettegrew, “The Perspicuity of Scripture,” The M aster’s
Seminary Journal 15/2 (Fall 2004):216-25.
55
Lehrer, New Covenant Theology 177.
56
W ells and Zas pel, New Covenant Theology 7.
57
See the helpful study by Mike Stallard, “Literal Hermeneutics, Theological Method, and the
Essence of D ispens ationalism ” (unp ublished pape r, Pre-Trib Research Center, 1998) 13-16. The paper
is availab le online at w ww .pre -trib.org/article-view.php?id=196, accessed 7/3/07. The following
discussion is adapted from this pap er.
58
Ibid., 15.
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
 The New Covenant and Covenant Theology 197

(1) The formulation of a biblical theology from the OT;

(2) The formulation of a biblical theology from the NT;
(3) The production of a systematic theology by harmonizing all biblica l inputs
to theo logy.

And why is this better? For at least three reasons. First, be cause this is the
nature of progressive revelation. In progressive revelation, revelation builds upon
previous revelation. Second, because this process enables the interpreter to read the
OT with a co nsistent gra mmatical-historical hermeneutic. And third, be cause in this
procedure, there is really no priority of one testament over another except in a
chronological order of progre ssive revelation. In the end , it is superior to be able to
insist that an O T text must not be strippe d of its original meaning in its context, found
through historical-gramm atical interpretation and bib lical theology. Both the NT and
the OT should be treated as perspicuous, not just the NT.

How to Do Hermeneutics: The Interpretation of the Old Testament

Interpreting the OT through the lens of the N ew Testament leads New
Covenant Theologians to use no n-historical-grammatical hermeneutics in interpreting
important OT passages. This propensity to dismiss what the OT says spreads to
passages that are not necessarily related to the New Covenant. Lehrer writes, for
example, “The words ‘atonement’ and ‘forgiven’ are repeated many times. If you
were simply to read the Old Testament accounts without considering the New
Testament teachings, you would certainly come to the conclusion that true spiritual
atonement and d ivine forgivene ss were acqu ired b y that priestly work.” 6 1 Lehrer
continues, “The problem still remains that God said that the animal sacrifices actually
atoned for sin when they did no t. . . . Consequently, God could say that the animal
sacrifices actually atoned for sin when they did not because he wanted to teach us
spiritual truth through this O ld Co venant picture.” 6 2 It certainly sounds as though
Lehrer is suggesting that G od sa id som ething tha t was no t true. A system that
depends on that kind of hermeneutic would seem to be inferior to a system that
consistently interprets OT passages with historical-grammatical herme neutics.
Such an inad equate hermeneutic of the OT im pacts specifically New
Covenant Theo logy’s understanding of the New Covenant. As noted above, new
Covenant Theologians recognize that Jer 31:31 “is promised to the geo-political
nation of Israel at some point in the future.” 6 3 As Lehrer comments, “The Israelites
would have read Jeremiah 31 and thought that the New Covenant restoration was
exclusively for them. But when God interprets His own word H e tells us that this is

61
Lehrer, New Covenant Theology 52.
62
Ibid., 61.
63
Ibid., 170.
198 The Master’s Seminary Journal

simply not the case.” 6 4 A co nfusing hermeneutic such as this leads to a confusing
biblica l theology, and consequently to an inadequate systematic theology.
The consistent use of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic leads to an
understanding that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants made with Israel
were declared to be everlasting and irrevocable. Moreo ver, the N T clearly teaches
that a gracious and faithful God has not cast off Israel even though the nation was
often disobedient and unbelieving. In regard to the covenant-keeping God, Scripture
says, “What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the
faithfulness of God, will it? M ay it never be! Rather, let God b e found true, though
every man be found a liar . . .” (Rom 3:3-4; cf. 11:25-29).

CONCLUSION

The interpretations of the New Covenant prese nted b y Covenant Th eology,

NC T, and Dispensationalism can be summa rized in chart form as follows:

SYSTEM Covenant New Co venant Dispen sationalism

Theology Theology

New Co venant NO YES YES

new?

Is Israel really NO NO YES

Israel?

Maintains OT in- NO NO YES

tegrity?

Consistent histo ri-

cal-grammatical NO NO YES
interpretation of
the OT?

New Covenant Theo logians have taken a large step in recognizing that the
New Covenant is really a new covenant— that Christians live under the command-
ments of the law o f Christ, as the NT states it (1 Cor 9:19-21). Ne w Covenant
Theologians’ spiritual maturity and honest desire to interpret the Scriptures accurately
is obvious in their literature. However, replacement of Israel by the church in New
Covenant passages is biblically unwarranted, and represents extreme continuity in the
continuity/disco ntinuity debate. Hopefully, since NCT is still in development, the

64
Ibid., 175.
 The New Covenant and Covenant Theology 199

New Covenant Theologians will yet improve their system, first, by seriously
reexamining their theo logical proc edure of reading the OT through the grid of the
N T , and second, by revaluating their hermeneutics that lead the m to abandon the
historical-grammatical method of interpreting the OT.